•
•

[Question] I have several questions: (self.badeconomics)

Shiloh86Sanders/Paul 2016 が 投稿

Okay, so first some questions about the general field of economics:

1) In terms of finding a decent job soon enough after college, is economics a good field to go into?

2) What sort of professions do economics graduates go into (and what opportunities are there for advancement)?

Also, on more specific subjects:

3) Is Hillary's plan to use CGT incentives to encourage long-term investment actually a good idea?

4) High healthcare costs are becoming an issue in the United States. What can do the government do to depress costs while still working within the system?

5) The August 1st-7th edition of the Economist had an article that contemplated the Piketty tax. The article seemed to regard inequality as a serious problem, yet I've heard from many on this sub that inequality hasn't really been rising. Is inequality increasing or not?

6) If not, where does Piketty's error lie when analyzing inequality? If so, would the wealth tax actually be a good idea?

全 7 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]jmo10 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

1 and 2. I'll give the same advice that I give to everyone: if you want to see how viable a degree is in terms of finding employment, go on a job search. Go onto indeed.com, monster.com, etc., type in the specific degree and search through the listings. For specific programs, ask for employment placement data if they have it.

There are many job listings for economics majors but that doesn't mean that an undergrad background properly prepares you for each job. For example, there are job-listings for investment analysts where economics is frequently listed as one of the desired majors along with Finance and Accounting. That doesn't mean you know how to price a fixed income security like a government bond. Your education wouldn't cover that unless you took the appropriate Finance course.

Or you might see jobs for data analysis where economics is listed as one of the desired majors. It will usually be listed along with statistics, computer science and mathematics. Again, your educational background with only an economics degree probably won't cover data analysis. Stats courses should be taken on top as well as some programming courses with an emphasis on what's used in industry like SAS.

So in that sense, at the undergrad level (things are very different at the grad level), I think you should look towards a double major. Good majors to accompany economics include Finance (specialize in Corporate Finance), Accounting, Stats, Computer Science and even Actuarial Sciences although those are usually professional programs.

[–]alexhoyerhoard plywood now for our ANCAP overlords 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

1) It really depends on you more than your major. With that said, I did well during interview season with an economics major, and my friends did even better. It's a good signal as a major, but I know people from a range of studies that have gotten great jobs. I might also suggest adding a second major if you have the time, it will give you good talking points around how you connected the two fields of study.

2) The big three for undergraduate degrees are finance (me), consulting, and business. You'll end up as an analyst in any of those tracks. But if those don't suit your interests, there are a ton of other things you can do. I know people from econ going to the Peace Corps, non-profits, TFA, etc. More than anything, undergrad econ is a set of analytical skills that can take you really far just about anywhere.

3) Not sure, I don't really buy the argument about corporate "short-termism", so I'm doubtful. Also, the optimal taxation rate of capital is zero, so now I really doubt it. [This](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23fd921e-3b75-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f590c.html#axzz3io6ExaVF] is an interesting read on the subject.

4) Hopefully HCE3 will pop in to answer. I will say that the majority of healthcare costs increases come from technological change, and those are generally worthwhile. To my knowledge, an all-payer system is generally favored by experts.

5) That depends entirely on who you ask, and how they measure. Overall, it probably has, but there are empirical disputes around exactly how much. For two views, see Saez, 2015 and Gordon.

6) For problems around Piketty's methodology, see here. Piketty's assertions about r-g are flawed for several reasons. First r-g ignores the role of distribution of labor income in increasing inequality (think SBTC). Second, as demonstrated therein, r-g can be fully consistent with decreasing income inequality. Third, r-g somewhat ignores that r and g are endogenous, and will move in response to changes in policy, capital stock, and technology. Fourth, if an economy even has minimal social mobility, r-g (even very large values) doesn't yield divergence of top level income.

[–]besttrousers 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Re: 6, nothing here seems to be responding to Piketty's actual arguments.

First r-g ignores the role of distribution of labor income in increasing inequality (think SBTC).

He acknowledges SBTC.

Second, as demonstrated therein, r-g can be fully consistent with decreasing income inequality.

And? He's not making an argument about income inequality.

Third, r-g somewhat ignores that r and g are endogenous, and will move in response to changes in policy, capital stock, and technology.

He makes this point several times. It's a contingent historical proposition.

Fourth, if an economy even has minimal social mobility, r-g (even very large values) doesn't yield divergence of top level income.

Again, he's not talking about income.

[–]alexhoyerhoard plywood now for our ANCAP overlords 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_5v7Rxbk8Z3k3F2t

I 'm fairly certain the paper is about wealth inequality? I think I just bungled the write up by substituting income where I should have said wealth.

[–]besttrousers 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

The IGM question was something Piketty would have disagree with. See Saez's comment:

Income and savings inequality increases are now fueling US wealth inequality. Down the road r-g will be central as predicted by Piketty

[–]alexhoyerhoard plywood now for our ANCAP overlords 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

"When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based."

That quote is from page 1 of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, I don't think he's purely treating r-g as a future determinant of inequality.

[–]besttrousers 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He is. I'm not sure how you're getting the opposite from the quote. It's a claim about the likely future path on inequality in the future. It's about 2015-2099, not 1980-2010.

See Krugman's review: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/may/08/thomas-piketty-new-gilded-age/

Capital in the Twenty-First Century is, as I hope I’ve made clear, an awesome work. At a time when the concentration of wealth and income in the hands of a few has resurfaced as a central political issue, Piketty doesn’t just offer invaluable documentation of what is happening, with unmatched historical depth. He also offers what amounts to a unified field theory of inequality, one that integrates economic growth, the distribution of income between capital and labor, and the distribution of wealth and income among individuals into a single frame.

And yet there is one thing that slightly detracts from the achievement—a sort of intellectual sleight of hand, albeit one that doesn’t actually involve any deception or malfeasance on Piketty’s part. Still, here it is: the main reason there has been a hankering for a book like this is the rise, not just of the one percent, but specifically of the American one percent. Yet that rise, it turns out, has happened for reasons that lie beyond the scope of Piketty’s grand thesis.